Fighting in the Heart of Liberal Madison for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This blog will focus on liberal hypocrisy and the small, but significant victories of the right at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

08 December 2005

Anti-War Left on the Wrong Side of History

I found a great essay about the roots of the anti-war left.

During the Vietnam War the Left became synonymous with the anti war peace movement. Masquerading as a ‘peace’ movement allowed the left to avoid the scrutiny of its many critics. In reality the left’s ‘peace’ movement had very little to do with peace and much to do with an allegiance to a brand new world ruled by Marxism.

Same basic story as today. The anti-war folks are not as much anti-war as they are anti-capitalism and anti-American. They want Socialism where we have Capitalism, they want Anarchy, where we have a Republic.

More peasants were killed during the first 3 years after America’s withdrawal from Indochina then all 13 years of the anti Communist war. Millions were ripped from their homes and force marched to re-education camps. Untold thousands of men, women, and children either perished or suffered unspeakable brutality at the hands of the new communist regimes. Thousands of boat people drowned attempting to escape the horror and tyranny of the left’s beloved reformers. Vietnam became one of the most militarized, totalitarian countries in the world.

In neighboring Cambodia, Pol Pot and his regime emptied entire cities and forced millions of refugees into the countryside to perish for lack of food, shelter, and medical care. Millions were slaughtered in the name of a Marxist revolutionary utopia. To this day The Killing Fields of Cambodia stand out as a stark symbol of man’s inhumanity to man.

Sound Familiar? What will the consequences be to a premature Iraq pull out? Well the left sure as hell does not care. They are greedy, they care about politics, not about people. They look beyond the fact that tens of thousands of Iraqis will die at the hands of terrorists if we pull out. The same people that are helping us rebuild the country will be hung in the streets. Like Cambodia, we will ignore the problem and the MSM will pretend like it never happened.

35 years removed, the anti war left still sees itself as heroic visionaries who battled oppression and sacrificed so much for a noble cause. In reality, most of the anti war radicals were pampered middle class college students with lots of time on their hands. They enjoyed freedom, liberties and a standard of living unequaled in history.

Very true! Too much free time. Tuition is too cheap at this University or something, these students have to either get a job or find a harder major, because I see the same students running around campus all the time. Mommy and Daddy pay for their tuition (out-of-state liberals, I am talking about you) and their housing so they can have time to be activists.


Blogger Bill said...

I have actually found that most of the so-called "Coasties" are more likely to be Republicans, while the Midwesterners tend to lean left. I also noticed that Landgon Street had a higher rate of Bush supporters than any other area of student housing. My parents do not pay for my school. I have not recieved money from them in nearly a year, and I am a native Wisconsinite.

However, to address your actual points of substance, rather than your narrow stereotyping of anti-war activists:

You might be suprised to learn that many of the "Old Right" anti-war Libertarians and paleo-conservatives, think that the neo-conservatives are Marxists. They claim that the whole theory of neo-conservativism comes from former Trotskyists, and that the neo-cons want to use the US-military as a vehicle for global democratic revolution.

I'm not a Trotskyist, in fact Leon Trotsky himself was responsible for leading the force which crushed the Anarchist-led Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921, before Stalin consolidated power and exiled Trotsky. BUT the Anti-war Right is correct about one thing, which is that the neo-cons are authoritarian revolutionaries -- its just that their vision of revolution is neo-liberal instead of socialist.

It was a Democrat (Johnson, whose "Great Society" proposal was the largest increase of the state social welfare system since the New Deal) who got the US into full-scale military actions in Vietnam. In fact, Johnson's VP Hubert Humphrey ran on a more pro-war platform than Richard Nixon did in the 1968 presidential race.

Do you even know what the Gulf of Tonkin incident was, Bob? Perhaps if France and the United States hadn't been involved in the affairs of Vietnam to begin with, trying to colonize it, perhaps no one would have died in the aftermath of withdrawal. When you oppress a people with imperial colonialism, you are setting the stage for an organized opposition to your rule, which must then arm itself and take power once they have driven you out. Is it any suprise that everywhere the United States military goes to colonize, ends up being ruled by tyrants?

The longer the United States stays in Iraq, the more time such an authoritarian opposition will have to develop popular support and consolidate into a unified front. As things stand today, the resistance is still fairly fragmented and localized, but as time passes, it will become more centralized and monolothic, thus leading to a totalitarian Islamist state which will carry out the sorts of atrocities you citied in PolPot's and HoChiMin's regimes.

If we leave today, as opposed to in 3 or 4 years, such a source of power will not be able to seize political power, and thus the various complex elements of Iraqi society will have to setup localized governing institutions, free from the organized coercin of the United States military or a Nationalist Liberation force. This will lead to a far less tyranical system than a centralized Islamist state, which is almost guarenteed should we continue along the current course.

I really don't understand what you think you are accomplishing by constantly attacking the anti-war Left. The fact is, that Bush was a liar, and that everyone who protested BEFORE the invasion of Iraq even started, turned out to be right:
-There were no WMD's
-While some of the Iraqi people initially greeted the US as liberators, they have since turned against the occupation because it is killing people at 3 times the rate that Saddam Hussein did
-The occupation has turned into bloody guerilla warfare
-The US military is really just there to secure the interests of transnational corporations, especially in oil

We are simply speaking the truth. Of course the powers that be don't like the truth. They have private interests to look after. And the best way for them to protect those interests, is by attacking those of us genuinely concerned about the future of the Iraqi and American people. You can call us Marxists if you like, it simply demonstrates your ignorance of the anti-war movement, since many of the best anti-war sites are Libertarian sites (like and

Thu Dec 08, 03:09:00 PM CST

Blogger Bill said...

Also, Bob, a vast majority of the violence and destruction at home during the 1960s and 70s, came from the police state repression against the movement, NOT from the movement itself. Just think about the Kent State incident, or read about the history of COINTELPRO -- the FBI's systematic targetting of left-wing groups, infiltration, harrassment of members, even several cases of assasination, one time of a leader of the Black Panther's party, Gestapo-style, while he was asleep in his home.

Further, the left-wing movements of the 1960s are also responsible for civil rights, de-segregation in the South, major gains in women's equality, bringing homosexuality out into the open, and free-speech rights on college campuses.

I really don't understand whats so great about this article you linked to. Other than the few statistics on deaths during and after the US occupation of Vietnam, and a citation of David Horowitz (who had a Stalinist background before becoming a neo-conservative) its just a mindless rant against leftists, which is all you seem capable of doing.

At least I backup my arguments with reasoned views and historical references. And my rants aren't against folks from the other side of the political aisle, they are against the state, war-mongering, and capital.

See, unlike Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, I try to use my politics for something constructive. Yes, I despise the system we live under, (and rightfully so, since oppression and inequality are neccessary in order for capitalism to exist) but I also do a lot of grassroots social work which you'd have a hard time disagreeing with. I support local co-ops, Family Farm Defenders, spent two weeks volunteering at a Rainbow relief kitchen in Mississippi -- the heart of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster zone. I cook vegetarian meals, serve them for free to the public (especially the homeless) on State St twice a week (its called "Food Not Bombs")

But then again, I guess I'm on the wrong side of history because I'm just a spoiled idealistic youth with a dangerous ideology, and I "hate America." Go figure...

I sometimes wonder how people like you actually believe all these lies and propoganda you are fed by the media and political party machines. Do you ever stop and actually THINK about things in a serious, critical way, or do you just accept what you are told as gospel truth, so long as its coming from the correct sources?

Seriously, because we can't claim to live in a free country if people don't think. I'm saying this for your own good, that I hope you start to develop some aversion to the brainwashing you have been subject to over the years, because if you don't, we're heading straight to hell. I mean, I was raised a Republican, and was a Democrat for a while at the end of high school, but I saw through their facade. In fact I didn't even vote for Kerry because he was just playing off anti-Bush paranioa. I voted for the Green Party's presidential candidate who you've probably never even heard of, his name's David Cobb. He was the only presidential candidate on enough ballots to theoretically win the electoral college, that was not a millionaire. Imagine that... he has more in common with either of us than he does with Bush or Kerry.

Oh, and one last thing... drumming up fear, by claiming that the anti-war movement is controlled by Communists, is also known as McCarthyism. The anti-war movement outside of college campuses (which means most of it) is madeup primarily of liberal adults with families. Even if it was primarily communists (the labor movement during the 1930s was primarily communists, and is largely responsible for the now-dwindling middle class which is oft-idolized as the stereotype of the 1950s) ITS STILL MCCARTHYISM, and it is a Fascistic/totalitarian technique.

FYI: The first group Hitler targetted when he rose to power was not the Jews. It was communists. Then came trade unionists. The Jews were third. In virtually every liberal democracy, including our own, social movements led by communists of various stripes are responsible for most of the civil liberties and standard of living people enjoy today. Thats why Hitler wanted communists eradicated, because he knew they would be the first to organize resistance to his political agenda.

Fri Dec 09, 06:37:00 AM CST

Blogger RT the LT said...

"social movements led by communists of various stripes are responsible for most of the civil liberties and standard of living people enjoy today."

Do you call the founding fathers of America communists for your civil liberties? Neat.

Sat Dec 10, 03:42:00 AM CST

Blogger Bill said...


The "founding fathers" wrote the Constitution as a racist, sexist, and classist document.

American Indians were denied citizenship rights. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes, but were denied voting "privileges", as were all white males who did not own private property. In addition, Women were denied private property rights as well as the vote, by relegating all electoral power, except the House of Representatives to the state assmemblies (And yes, Bob... I'm an Anarchist... I'm against having a Republic, because it entails representative government and thus aristocracy, rather than direct democracy and thus equality)

In fact, the most ardent revolutionaries from 1776 were fierce opponents of the Constitution -- Thomas Paine (the author of the revolutionary pamphlet "Common Sense") Patrick Henry (Give me liberty or give me death!!) ... even Thomas Jefferson until the Federalists were forced by popular pressure to include a Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton (the leader of the Federalists) was a reactionary aristocrat. He was responsible for creating "the aristocracy of our monied corporations" (in the words of Jefferson) by his attempts to centralize the banking system underneath the Federal Government.

I suppose that one could describe Thomas Paine as a Socialist, although Socialism as a political ideology has its roots in mid19th Century Industrial Europe... the word "socialism" didn't even exist until 1827.

Paine also participated in the French Revolution (and was almost executed for displeasing the Jacobins) and came close to kick-starting a revolution in Britian. He also invented the idea of social saftey nets, while championing a TRUE free-market economy (as opposed to the corporate-state "free-market", as we live under now) and was the first to formulate the political conception of "human rights." Edmund Burke (British Statesman, and the founder of classical conservative thought) is most famous for his debate with Paine, regarding the French Revolution. Burke opposed the revolution, while Paine supported it.

But to address your post... those most responsible for our civil liberties and rights, are the people of America who have been struggling for freedom, for more than 200 years. There is no leader of this struggle, only fellow human beings struggling for a better future. Hopefully, some day, we can include non-human animals in this struggle too, but right now they are systematically exploited and treated as property. (Humans are animals too, you know...)

Sat Dec 10, 04:16:00 AM CST

Anonymous Paul said...

Critique of Ike Morgan article:
1.) Marxism can hardly be described as a cornerstone of the New Left. Anyone who has read Marx knows that he holds workers to be the agent of change in a society, not students. The New Left explicitly rejected this approach, declaring in the Port Huron statement that "hungry stomachs" can no longer be a prime motivation for change. C. Wright Mills, an intellectual forefather of the New Left, urged activists to turn away from the union movement. Herbert Marcuse, another New Left grandaddy, while claiming to be a Marxist, actually held that workers were totally bought off and that only a criminal underclass could bring change. While many New Leftists became Marxists in the 70s, the New Left as a whole during its height rejected Marxism. Just because someone is a Socialist dodesn't make them a Marxist.

2.) More people were killed after withdrawal in a large part because of the massive US bombing campaign. More bombs were dropped on North vietnam post 1968 than in all of WWII. Second, the regime of the North Vietnamese was as bloody as it was at least in part from the fact that it had been fighting a brutal war for the last decade and a half. Without such interventions, there is little evidence that things would have proceeded as they did. Finally, you can't call the North Vietnamese Marxist. The reason the tet offensive failed was because the NVA anticipated urban uprisings to accompany its attacks. this never happened. workers had no say in the formation of any vietnamese government. the most basic idea of marxism is the self-emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class. saying vietnam discredits marxism is like saying the Congo under Mobutu discredits democracy. As for Pol Pot, the same applies, he was never interested in marxism, but in using a language of liberation for the conquest of his own power. Trotskyists all over the world opposed Pol Pot with much more consistency than any other political tradition.

3.) Are you honestly going to allege that in Central and South American Leftists killed more people than right wing regimes? Thats insane! The death toll of Pinochet's Chile, of Somoza's Nicaragua, of Guatemala after Arbenz was overthrown, equal in the millions. Plus, most of these countries were intitally hostile to Soviet help, taking it only after American aid had been refused.

Lastly, stylystic note. Calling this an essay is like calling The Politics of Bad Faith a treatise. Just because 40 or so sentences are laid out doesn't make something a coherent thought. Polemic is much more accurate.

Thu Dec 15, 11:39:00 AM CST

Blogger RT the LT said...


Humans are not the same as animals. We have souls, they do not. There purpose in this world is to feed us, entertain us, protect us, keep us company, and keep us warm at night. If I see you wearing a leather belt, Im going to be mad Bill!

enough said

Thu Dec 15, 10:58:00 PM CST

Blogger Bill said...


I'm a vegetarian, and so is my girlfriend. I'm currently reading a book entitled "Animal Liberation."

Now please tell, what seperate humans from animals? (Humans are animals too, you know... A "soul" is nothing more than a supersititious concept - an identity of SELF linked to abstractions)

Fri Dec 16, 02:09:00 AM CST

Anonymous Jake said...

Why stop at animals? How can you justify eating fruits and veggies? Eating nuts and berries is eating baby plants.

Thu Dec 22, 04:49:00 PM CST

Blogger Bill said...


I also support plant liberation (although it is not as practical at this point in time, because of our agricultural practices) However, the key difference between Animals and Plants (the reason I am a vegetarian) is that animals feel pain and have conciousness, while plants do not.

The problem is not so much with eating animals or plants (since its part of nature and the cycle of life) but with the DOMESTICATION of life, which is a form of oppression, and a major cause of class-society and the state. For example, I'm not against eating wild-game, that was never domesticated, but hunted and killed in its natural setting. Although, I do have some problems with our current hunting paradigm, because its not neccessary in order for us to survive given our current food production technologies, its a sport which is done just for the killing.

I also support Organic Food, which is a minor step towards plant liberation, because it allows plants to grow more naturally and wildly.

Wed Dec 28, 01:31:00 AM CST

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill is a nutjob headcase. Don't bother him and maybe he'll go away.

Thu Jan 12, 02:49:00 PM CST


Post a Comment

<< Home